logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.06.11 2015다203660
배당이의
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Any creditor who has an executory exemplification, any creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to a registration of a decision on commencing the auction, or any creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act and other Acts, may receive a distribution only in the case where he has made a demand for distribution by the completion period for demanding a distribution, and in the case where he has failed to make a lawful demand for distribution, even

In addition, even though the creditor has demanded a distribution by the completion period for the demand for distribution, where only a part of the claim has been demanded, the claim that has not been demanded shall not be added or expanded after the completion period for the demand for distribution.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da44160, May 10, 2012). Demand for distribution shall be made by a document stating the cause and amount of the claim, and the written demand for distribution shall be accompanied by an executory exemplification or a copy thereof, and other documents attesting the qualification for a demand for distribution (Article 48 of the Civil Execution Rule). In such cases, the cause of the claim is sufficient to state to the extent that it is possible to specify the cause of the claim held by the creditor demanding distribution against the debtor, but, in the event of a demand for distribution not based on executory exemplification, detailed indication of the cause of the claim is required to the extent that it is possible

(2) On September 28, 2012, the date of the completion to demand a distribution of the instant voluntary auction procedure, the Plaintiff, as a party to the selection of the employees of Afax Co., Ltd., a debtor and the owner of real estate subject to auction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da65242, Dec. 24, 2008).

arrow